JIRA MCP Server

jira_get_projects

List accessible JIRA projects with key, name, and type. Optionally limit the number of results.

Instructions

Elenca i progetti JIRA accessibili con chiave, nome e tipo.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "jira_get_projects"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`maxResults`	No	Numero massimo di progetti da restituire (default 50)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Jul 8, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It says 'accessible' but does not clarify if archived projects are included, whether authentication is required, or if there are any side effects. It is a read operation but lacks explicit statement.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single short sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core purpose. However, it is in Italian, which may affect readability for non-Italian agents.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool is simple (one optional param, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate. It lacks details on return format or pagination, but that is acceptable for a list tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% (one optional parameter maxResults with description). The tool description does not add meaning beyond the schema; baseline 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states 'Lists accessible JIRA projects with key, name, and type' (Italian: 'Elenca i progetti JIRA accessibili con chiave, nome e tipo.'), which specifies the verb (list), resource (JIRA projects), and scope (accessible). It distinguishes from sibling tools like jira_get_project_roles, but could be more explicit about being read-only or returning a list.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., jira_search). It does not mention prerequisites, when-not to use, or preferable contexts.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.